arXiv imposes rate limit on paper submissions to stem the AI slop tide
arXiv, the leading preprint repository for academic papers, has implemented an immediate hard limit of two new submissions per month per submitter to combat a surge in low-quality papers, often assisted by AI tools. The move came after the platform became an independent non-profit in summer following 25 years under Cornell University's stewardship, necessitating stricter measures as volunteer moderators became overwhelmed by submissions that fail to meet scholarly standards.
The repository received 40,363 submissions in September alone, reflecting a 309 per cent increase over the past decade and a doubling in just the past two years. arXiv editorial advisory council chair Thomas Dietterich noted that "a relatively small proportion of authors are submitting a large number of low-quality papers," delaying quality research by days or weeks as moderators struggle to review them. The limit also caps three active submissions per submitter at any time, with rejected papers counting toward the monthly total.
- arXiv limits submitters to two papers per month to tackle AI-assisted low-quality submissions.
- Submissions surged 309% in a decade; moderators overwhelmed by thin, narrow-scope papers.
- Temporary measure while arXiv develops better submission guidelines and practices.
New here? Start with this
arXiv is the world's largest online repository where academics and scientists share their research papers. Created over three decades ago, it has become essential infrastructure for academic research, allowing researchers to publish findings quickly before they go through formal peer review in traditional journals.
The platform has recently been overwhelmed by a surge of submissions that are often of poor quality or created with the help of artificial intelligence tools. In September alone, arXiv received over 40,000 submissions—more than double the volume from just two years earlier—stretching the volunteer moderators who assess whether papers meet basic scholarly standards.
arXiv only recently became an independent non-profit organisation after 25 years under Cornell University's stewardship. The shift left it needing to manage its own moderation, coming at a time when the volume of submissions and concerns about quality have made the task of maintaining the platform's reputation as a trusted source significantly more difficult.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those supporting the rate limits argue that arXiv's fundamental value lies in being a trusted repository of scholarly work, compromised when low-quality submissions—many apparently generated or polished by AI tools—overwhelm the volunteer moderation system. With submissions doubling in two years and reaching over 40,000 in a single month, researchers will lose faith in preprint quality without gatekeeping, defeating the repository's purpose. The rate limit is a measured response protecting scientific integrity whilst affecting only those who submit prolifically, remaining generous compared to traditional journal practices.
The case against
Those opposing the limits contend that arXiv's purpose is democratising access to scientific research and enabling rapid dissemination, values that rate restrictions fundamentally undermine. The measure is a blunt instrument punishing prolific researchers—including those in fast-moving fields or early-career scholars—for actions of a minority submitting poor work. Rather than restricting access, arXiv could invest in improved moderation, implement AI-detection tools, or develop community-based quality indicators that preserve open access whilst addressing genuine concerns about submission standards.